Advertisement

loader

Talk

Advanced search

Not enough armed police what about gun club support

(26 Posts)
bkgirl Mon 28-Dec-15 20:20:20

Seeing reports claiming in the event of an isis attack, there are not enough armed police to protect towns/cities. I was wondering if gun club members, particularly ex police and forces could be in some way seconded if the need arose. Perhaps necessary legislation could be considered.

MumOnTheRunCatchingUp Mon 28-Dec-15 20:49:28

Never mind legislation! What about thorough ongoing professional training..... And of course the issue of who would pay for it

Gliblet Mon 28-Dec-15 20:54:09

In the event of a terrorist attack there's no such thing as enough armed police. That's what the army & reserve forces are for, and given that a lot of their ability to function in a high stress situation like that depends on being able to function in a professional unit, following orders and coordinating with the police etc. I doubt they'd want enthusiastic amateurs joining in. Particularly since it's sods law that the people most likely to volunteer are the last people you'd want skittering into a potential hostage situation heavily armed.

bkgirl Mon 28-Dec-15 21:13:33

Yep I agree with you both. That said I was more thinking about retired professionals than enthusiastic amateurs. Obviously trained police and army would be way more preferable but considering the government funded the banksters instead of the nhs and police/essential services. That said if you had a Paris style attack what would be the response times before someone stopped them? The TA for example are trained aren't they? Could they be prepared to step up when in civies?

Gliblet Mon 28-Dec-15 21:20:14

That already happens with the army reserve (once you retire from regular service you're expected to spend a period of time as a reserve). The problem with all of these is that none of them (regular army included) would have any kit/weapons with them. The SAS are the only ones who (allegedly) are allowed to take their toys home. Unless we made it legal for them to own/carry handguns, which I would say is a slippery slope, we'd still be relying on response times for armed police, army, reserves or TA (who would be in line behind the reserves in a call-up situation) to assemble, kit up and mobilise.

bkgirl Mon 28-Dec-15 21:34:50

That's good so what if at secret points (local police stations etc) weapons could be stored for their quick local use. It seems we need some sort of home defence in place that is professionally planned with the right resources. Sadly I detest guns but admit without some real resources in every town, I would be worried about dreadful carnage. The present systems seem really inadequate for what appears to be inevitable attacks.

Gliblet Mon 28-Dec-15 21:44:43

I have a feeling dreadful carnage would be more likely if 10 or so armed reserves went charging in to a situation like the recent one at the Bataclan - there's a reason the police will wait for armed police, who will wait for army support before 'going in', and while it may look/feel like they're doing nothing there will be a lot of background work going on to establish what's going on, how many attackers are they dealing with, who are they, what do they want, do they have hostages etc.

Sadly the only way to prevent bloodshed is for people to make a conscious choice not to use violence as a tool to get what they want. As long as people are determined to attack other people, all any of us can do is minimise the damage they can inflict. Even in the parts of America where homeowners (and off-duty police, and veterans) can legally own/carry assault class weapons, terrorist attacks still kill people.

ABetaDad1 Tue 29-Dec-15 17:20:46

"Seeing reports claiming in the event of an isis attack, there are not enough armed police to protect towns/cities. "

Well call me cynical but Govt is trying to change legislation at the moment to the way armed police operate. Wouldn't it be easier to sell that if they were seen to be 'responding to the concerns of the public'. These 'reports are coming from where exactly?

I do not want to see UK police routinely carrying and using firearms. It would not make us safer. We survived the IRA and well remember when living in London I was walking down Fleet Street one sunny afternoon and seeing a couple of Range Rovers full of special forces types appear from nowhere to surround a suspicious truck and haul the driver and his mate out face down on to the road.

It is about intelligence and speed of response of specialist units - not hundreds of armed officers randomly roaming the streets.

SSargassoSea Tue 29-Dec-15 17:26:29

The IRA had guns - but at that time most of the rest of the UK citizens didn't. It's not that case now, guns everywhere.

meditrina Tue 29-Dec-15 17:30:33

Storming a building or any other form of hostage rescue are highly specialised tasks.

What is needed are elite, highly trained units (made up of people who know how to work together under fire) on a short notice to move and with ready access to whatever hardware they think they might need.

Not someone who fires a sporting weapon down a range in their spare time (gun club types) or even former military personnel (who may have had zero experience of this kind of operation anyhow, and since leaving be out of date on their weapons training. Or if in reserves, unless actively training for a deployment, do little other than requirements of APWT).

PrettyBrightFireflies Tue 29-Dec-15 17:32:12

That said I was more thinking about retired professionals than enthusiastic amateurs.

Armed Police Officers are screened regularly to ensure that they are still suitable to carry and use a weapon - life events and health issues are taken into account and active officers are removed from Firearms Teams when it is felt necessary.

The idea of arming "former" professionals doesn't fill me with confidence I'm afraid - as scary as the thought of a terror attack is, I don't think putting guns in the hands of more people is the answer.

patterkiller Tue 29-Dec-15 17:35:18

enthusiastic amateurs confused. Do they get to wear a badge to say so?

MumOnTheRunCatchingUp Tue 29-Dec-15 17:38:02

Former professionals ...all aging and with outdated training. And who takes responsibility if civilians get caught up in it all and end up getting shot and killed?

ABetaDad1 Tue 29-Dec-15 17:40:27

I assume the Govt and the relevant agencies have been 'wargaming through a Paris style attack scenario on London or other major UK city.

Although there were massive numbers of armed police units on the streets of Paris the attack came to an end because a) some of the attackers just blew themselves up immediately or b) a highly trained specialist unit entered the theatre to attack the terrorists directly.

It was a few attackers in specific locations not hundreds attacking on a wide front like a warzone. Most of the armed Paris police were just stood around doing nothing.

noblegiraffe Tue 29-Dec-15 17:43:49

The more guns there are around, the more people there are that will be shot by guns.

This is like responding to Sandy Hook by saying that we need to arm teachers.

VoyageOfDad Tue 29-Dec-15 17:46:37

Sounds like dad's army.

The last thing any armed response unit needs is a load of old blokes / ladies with weapons complicating things.

Sallyingforth Tue 29-Dec-15 17:51:32

Crazy. Absolute folly.
How could amateurs join into a battle between terrorists and police/soldiers. It would be carnage.
You must be joking.

maketheworldgoaway Tue 29-Dec-15 17:57:07

A terrorist attack with a couple of blokes with weapons is contained/dealt with relatively quickly by the Police armed response teams.

There has been no need for extra reinforcement. There won't be any need unless dozens of armed gunmen appear and open fire on the public and this is very unlikely.

A terrorist attack by ISIS or any other group which can't be contained by Police will involve bombing, not armed gunmen.

Takeparacetamolandstopmoaning Tue 29-Dec-15 18:00:28

That's a crazy idea. Armed police won't stop an attack like this- but what will help is the strict gun laws in this country which makes it much harder to get/ smuggle in machine guns such as used in France.

Twinkie1 Tue 29-Dec-15 18:03:33

They won't do it because if they 'accidentally' shoot an innocent person they could be tried for murder as our current police who carry guns are.

Hillfarmer Tue 29-Dec-15 20:34:44

OP must be joking. Or perhaps OP also agrees with Rep Presidential Candidate Ben Carson when he said that if the Jews had been better armed there would not have been a Holocaust.

without some real resources in every town, I would be worried about dreadful carnage.

Er yes...quite the opposite in fact. I predict 'dreadful carnage' if there was some community arms depot. I mean WTAF??!!

Do me a favour. Last thing we would need in the event of an attack would be 'gun club members' (euw yuk!) and ex-forces running amok round my city. No thank you. You are joking aren't you bkgirl? If you're not, then you are surely nuts.

Ta1kinPeece Tue 29-Dec-15 20:36:14

America has Armed Police.
It does not save Americans from being shot or blown up by nutters
quite the opposite

Tim McVeigh killed 168 people in a building that had armed guards.
What use are armed police against that ?

NewLife4Me Tue 29-Dec-15 20:40:53

I think the gov just want armed Police on our streets like the Americans.
They'll use any made up reason to do this, the same as the reasons they make up fake threats in the first place.
Quite scary really.

bkgirl Wed 30-Dec-15 02:45:00

You have me convinced!!! A wild idea it was smile Especially the point about Tim Mc Veigh. You are right. OK we just need serious funding for police and armed response all over the country.

bkgirl Wed 30-Dec-15 03:01:21

ah well, in norn ireland we all learned to always know where emergency exits are , it sickens me to think something similar could kick off here

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now